Mark L. Stout Consulting is an all-purpose transportation consulting firm, specializing in finance, program management, and legislative and DOT policy. Our company has served public agencies and non-profits, big and small, all across the nation. Mark is widely-recognized as an expert whose years of experience can help organizations to break through gridlock and deliver transformative projects and innovative community enhancements.

Mark L. Stout Consulting

Friday, November 18, 2016

As a dark age looms for America, one of the important losses
we expect to sustain is a robust climate change policy.Climate change deniers will now control
the White House and both houses of Congress and probably the major climate-related
agencies.

In the twilight of the Obama years the Administration has
launched a “United States Mid-Century Strategy for Deep Decarbonization”
(available here).Various comments
on the document have ranged from “breathtaking” to a “good first step.”The Washington Post (here) notes that
the strategy represents where the Obama Administration was headed.

My own reaction is that the vision is bold enough, but the
actual strategies to get there are not.On the transportation side, the document lays out the usual list:increase fuel efficiency, develop
low-carbon fuels and vehicles, and reduce vehicle miles traveled.No question this is the right list, but
how do we do that?

For vehicles, the document states: “To achieve widespread
penetration in upcoming decades, clean vehicles and fuels will require cost
reductions, performance improvements, improved consumer acceptance, and
development of infrastructure for recharging or fueling.”No doubt.What are the policies that will make that happen?

For reducing VMT, it states: “State transportation
departments and metropolitan planning organizations are taking the first steps
to include GHG targets and performance measures as they develop their long-term
transportation plans and transportation improvement programs.”If the first steps are being taken,
what are the next steps?What is
the role of the federal government in encouraging VMT reduction through better
land use and transportation planning?

I applaud the Administration for continuing to advance
climate change policies until the end.I only wish this farewell document had been bolder.I probably would have salted in some
stronger medicine, like advocating that USDOT should initiate legislative and
regulatory action to:

Wednesday, October 19, 2016

At long last – after a 3 ½ month shut down of the state’s
Transportation Trust Fund – the New Jersey Legislature has passed and the
Governor has signed a bill increasing the gas tax by 23 cents a gallon.The tax increase will generate more
than $1 Billion in revenue for the Trust Fund, essentially restoring capital
funding levels to where they were before the shutdown.Why was such a massive increase
necessary?Because nearly 30 years
of increasing debt obligations without any new revenue had essentially
bankrupted the whole system.As a
veteran of the many failed attempts to get the gas tax increased over those
years I am happy to see it finally happen, though I have to shake my head that
it needed a complete financial meltdown to spur action.

So, it’s all good, right?Well, not quite.

First, I hate to say it, but it’s not enough money.Although it may be stretched to about
$1.6 Billion a year through debt financing (which brings it own problems), the
huge costs that New Jersey will be facing over the next decade, especially on
the transit side (think Hudson River tunnels) will require more resources.

Second, the Trust Fund mainly finances capital costs, so the
new bill leaves the operations and maintenance side woefully underfunded.Under New Jersey’s wacky transportation
finance system, operations and maintenance costs mainly fall on the state’s
general funds, which have been continually squeezed for a generation.The damage caused on the transit side
was recently documented in the New York
Times(here).On the highway side, routine
maintenance is chronically underfunded, so bridges and highways are allowed to
deteriorate until they are in bad enough condition to require capital
projects.Staff functions which
can’t be sheltered under a capital line item are just left undone.This squeeze will actually be made
worse by the Trust Fund bill, which cuts general fund revenue sources (sales
tax and estate tax) as part of the political price exacted by the Governor.

Third, although a funding bill is a big step forward, it
really should be accompanied by significant transportation reform.Some of the issues that need to be addressed
on the NJDOT side – in my opinion – include better budget control of project
costs, much more emphasis on operations and maintenance (both of these issues
related to the transportation finance system), a renewed connection between
transportation planning and land use planning (which has waned in recent
years), a stronger connection to climate change resilience and other
sustainability issues, and a stronger commitment to collaborative and robust
planning.

I should point out that there are some substantive problems
common in other states that are not
prevalent in New Jersey.One is
transit funding.Although transit
funding is inadequate, especially on the operations and maintenance side, it’s
not because transit is an unwanted houseguest, as it is in many states.New Jersey being a geographically
compact and densely populated state, transit is political popular in all
regions and in the Legislature.Another problem not prominent in New Jersey is overinvestment in highway
capacity increases.Transportation
decision makers decided a long time ago (first explicitly stated in the 1989
Transportation Plan) that New Jersey could not “build its way out of
congestion” and resources have increasingly focused on system preservation, and
especially the bridge program.

A companion bill to the tax bill does, however, offer hope
for the future on these unaddressed issues.It creates a Transportation Policy Review Board, to be
composed of nine public members, all of whom are supposed to have
transportation expertise.The
Board is given a broad mandate to “provide independent analysis of the transportation
capital program, provide comments on the cost effectiveness of the program,
evaluate the condition of the State transportation system, and identify needed infrastructure
investments.”The Board is to have
its own budget and the ability to conduct its own research and to produce its
own reports.(One of the specific
tasks spelled out in the legislation is a study of a VMT tax.)If the Board fulfills its statutory
charter it will become, in effect, a state transportation commission, something
New Jersey has not had since 1948.History instructs us, however, not to assume success (the new Board is
legislatively built on the statutory ruins of a previous failed review board).

The companion bill contains various other provisions, but I
will mention just two: one very good and one very bad.The very good provision requires that
New Jersey DOT set up a monthly online project reporting system – long overdue
– which could become the kernel of a New Jersey Grey Notebook (see Washington State DOT).The really bad provision establishes a Capital Program
Approval Committee with appointees from the Legislature.The Committee is to assure that “legislative
input” is considered in putting together the annual program.The program can’t be adopted until each
member of the Committee approves each project!

Friday, September 16, 2016

I recently posted on Lisbon’s excellent metro system –
reflections from a recent visit – but also want to comment on some of the other
elements of a varied and robust public transportation system.

Tram 28

Like San Francisco’s cable cars, this electrified streetcar
line is part transportation system and part tourist attraction.It is regularly listed as one of the
top 10 things to see in Lisbon.The crowded, rickety tram pursues a colorful route through the city,
highlighted by a precipitous, winding ride through the narrow lanes of the
historic Alfama district.There is
often a queue to get on the Number 28, but it’s worth the wait.

Modern trams

Alongside the “antique” trams plying Line 28 and a couple of
other routes, Lisbon also uses modern, comfortable trams, notably on Line 15,
which efficiently connects the city center with the outlying tourist
destination of Belem.

Buses

All the buses I saw looked clean and modern.The transit authority uses minibuses to
navigate the narrow streets of the Alfama district.

Tuk-tuks

Perhaps nothing speaks to the tourist boom in Lisbon more than
the proliferation of tuk-tuks – 3-wheelers that race up and down the streets,
serving as taxis and tourmobiles.These appear to be loosely regulated and entrepreneurial, offering
travelers a quick and sometimes harrowing ride through the city.They vary widely in size and motive
power, so it’s hard to say whether these are a net positive or negative for air
quality and greenhouse gas emissions.But they are fun!

Funiculars

Lisbon is a very hilly city, and funiculars are practical as
well as being fun.Although I
don’t like the acceptance of graffiti on the cars, they offer a very
picturesque trip!

Elevador Santa Justa

Although generally grouped with the funiculars, the Elevador
Santa Justa really is what it says – an elevator!Designed by a student of Gustav Eiffel, the iron structure
carries passengers from the lower town to the upper town – with lots of selfies
at the top!

Bike/ped

Although the streets are all thronged with people, Lisbon is
in many ways not an easy city for pedestrians.For one thing, cars (not to mention trams) roar (or rumble)
through the narrow streets with pedestrians often walking single file and
hugging the walls of the bordering buildings.For another, the beautiful and characteristic pavement tiles
(calçada portuguesa – you saw them in Rio during the Olympics) are tough to
walk on.As for bikes, I saw very
few, whether due to a non-bicycling culture or the challenging terrain.In the newer parts of town, where there
are broad boulevards, the city has embarked on a program of reducing auto space
and expanding room for bike lanes, pedestrian space, and the always-important
sidewalk cafes.

Transit oriented development

There isn’t much TOD in Lisbon – at least that I saw – with
the notable exception of the Parque das Nações complex in the north of the
city.Originally built for the 1998
World Exhibition, the complex houses an aquarium, a concert hall, a shopping
mall, and other attractions, together with housing.The complex is served by a multimodal transit station,
designed by Santiago Calatrava, which links the Metro, national and commuter
rail, and buses.Although the
design and architecture is a bit too concretey and windy for my taste, it is
impressive and worth a visit.

All-in-all, Lisbon is an easy and inexpensive city to get
around in using public transportation – at least in the center – and a
wonderful place to visit.Está
bem!

Thursday, September 8, 2016

I had occasion to spend a few days in Lisbon recently and of
course did several rides on the Metro.

My review?Nice
ride!

The system is well laid out, with four lines criss-crossing
one another in a dense network in the city center.Trains are clean and frequent.Stations are clean with clear signage and are decorated with
bright, tasteful station art – traditional Portuguese tiles with updated
images. Every major tourist and business destination in the center is served with
the exception of some in very hilly neighborhoods, which need special
treatment.(One clever solution is
found at the Baixa-Chiado station.The station’s platforms are in the lower town – Baixa – but there is a
long escalator link to the Chiado district in the upper town.Photo of the Chiado entrance below).There are direct connections to
commuter rail and ferry terminals.Maps and line charts are clear and easy to understand.

What demerits can be given?Not many.Some
of the underground transfers are long, but that’s a feature of most large
networks.Occasionally three-car
trains (as opposed to the normal 8 or 10) appear, with little warning, stop at
the top end of the platform, and zoom off as customers are still running down
the platform to catch it.

But overall an excellent system!

Why can’t we do that here?(And why do I have to keep asking this question?)

More on the other aspects of Lisbon transit (trams, buses,
funiculars, tuk-tuks, etc.) in another post.

Monday, August 15, 2016

A new report from the UK suggests that there soon may be
more electric vehicle charging stations than conventional gas stations in that
country (story here).

The country is already blanketed with an “electric highway”
of 296 fast chargers on the motorway network.These are operated by a firm called Ecotricity (website
here).The motorway chargers have
been free during their first 5 years of operation, but are now switching to a
payment system.The “electric
highway” enables EVs to travel freely on major traffic corridors while
relieving the “range anxiety” that may discourage potential EV buyers.All of this, of course, facilitates the
uptake of EVs.

Friday, August 5, 2016

Having evaluated the Republican Platform on transportation,
I thought I should also do the Democratic.You won’t be surprised to hear that it is far better – a
pretty low bar to clear.

The Democratic Platform (available here) doesn’t actually have a
Transportation Plank (more about that in a minute) but does discuss the topic
under the “Create Good-Paying Jobs” and Climate Change/Clean
Energy/Environmental Justice planks.

There are two strong elements concerning transportation.

First, the platform calls for a major investment in
infrastructure: making “the most ambitious investment in American infrastructure
since President Eisenhower created the interstate highway system.”For transportation, this means
“updating and expanding our roads, bridges, public transit, airports, and
passenger and freight rail lines.”

Second, the platform directly links transportation
investment to climate change (“an urgent threat and a defining challenge of our
time”) and clean energy: “We will transform American transportation by reducing
oil consumption through cleaner fuels, vehicle electrification [and] increasing
the fuel efficiency of cars, boilers, ships, and trucks.We will make new investments in public
transportation and build bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure across our urban
and suburban areas.”Transportation is one part of the “green and resilient infrastructure”
that will “protect communities from the impact of climate change and help them
to mitigate its effects.”

I do have a few smallish concerns and one big one.On the smallish side, transportation
does not get its own plank, but is subsumed mainly into “infrastructure,” which itself
is an element of “Create Good-Paying Jobs.”Transportation plays a unique role in the economy and
society, and mixing it in with water and sewer and schools and energy grids in
funding programs can cause problems.Also, in an ideal world I would have liked to have seen a better defined
vision for a 21st century transportation system, more on resilience,
more on transportation reform, more on the overall importance of transportation
to the economy (beyond short-term jobs), and more program details.

But those concerns are really more drafting issues than
substance issues.My big concern
is that the plank doesn’t address revenue.This is going to be a big challenge, but we won’t get to
where we need to be without a significant slug of new revenue.Not only does the plank not talk about
revenue, it evokes the siren song of a national infrastructure bank.As I have said many times before,
infrastructure banks are fine, but they are tools for borrowing money not generating
revenue.

So overall I give the Democratic platform on transportation
a B grade on the basis of its strong commitment to a robust investment program
and to its clear linkage to climate change. It's a really good start, but A grades are only available to those who propose a solid
revenue plan.Bonus points may be
available later!

Amid all the drama of the two major party political
conventions, policy issues got very little attention and the platforms
themselves even less.Actually,
despite the cynicism that party platforms attract, they have been shown
historically to be good indicators of the general policy direction, and often
the specific initiatives, the respective parties will adopt.The transportation planks of the 2016
platforms are definitely worth a look.

So, first the Republicans (full text available here).I guess the good news is that the
Republicans actually have a transportation plank, called “America on the
Move.”The narrative begins with a
nostalgic reference to the days of bipartisan transportation policies: a
curious way to begin, as the Republicans effectively ended the days of
bipartisanship by refusing to entertain any more bumps in the federal gas
tax.The text then shifts into an
ideological attack on the Obama Administration for subordinating “civil
engineering to social engineering as it pursues an exclusively urban vision of
dense housing and government transit.”(FYI, the use of the term “government transit” instead of “public transportation”
is a marker for Tea Party ideology.)

The main proposal of the plank is pulling all non-highway
programs out of the Highway Trust Fund.Targeted are “mass transit,” bike/ped programs, recreational trails,
landscaping, historical “renovations,” ferry boats, federal lands, scenic
byways, and education.These
“worthwhile enterprises” should be funded“through other sources.”These other sources apparently don’t include other federal funds, as the
platform states that these programs “should not be the business of the federal
government.”

Of course, it’s easier to dismiss all these other programs –
as well as encouragement for Smart Growth – if you don’t believe that climate
change is real.The Environmental
Progress plank talks about “shoddy science” and “scare tactics” in regard to
climate science and advocates withholding U. S. funding from the UN climate
program, repudiating the Paris agreement, and enforcing “dispassionate analysis
of hard data” (lulz).

The transportation plank does recognize that current funding
levels for surface transportation (meaning highways) may fall short.The answer?Encourage more public/private partnerships.This shift from tax financing to toll
financing is a Tea Party/Reason Foundation ideological mainstay.

Some other proposals:

·Repeal Davis-Bacon (old-fashioned union busting)

·“Reform” provisions of the environmental laws

·Privatize Amtrak, at least in the Northeast
Corridor

My final grade for the transportation plank of the
Republican platform?F.From a political science standpoint,
the language should be credited for being generally clear about direction and
specific about proposals.However,
any platform that proposes to withdraw the federal commitment to surface
transportation (outside of basic highway funding) gets a failing grade from me.

Monday, June 27, 2016

New Jersey is in the throes of dealing with a long-overdue
gas tax increase – or of just letting the state’s transportation trust fund
fail.I suppose it’s pretty
predictable that some participants in a debate like this will generate
rhetorical fog.My friend and
colleague Jack Lettiere has just confronted (see http://politickernj.com/sponsored/when-it-comes-to-fixing-our-infrastructure-just-the-facts/#.V3GAZpMrIdX)
a bogus analysis making the rounds in New Jersey, which asserts that New
Jersey’s “real problem” is “out of control spending,” with the implication that
no tax increases are necessary.

Jack carefully pulls apart this very wobbly analysis, which
was put forward by the Reason Foundation.What he doesn’t say – and what I think should be added to the discussion
– is that the Reason Foundation isn’t some impartial think tank.It is an ideologically driven,
quasi-libertarian group that opposes public works in general.And by public works in general, I mean
just that.Raising money from
taxation to support infrastructure investment is something that the Ayn Rand
crowd just finds repugnant.The
Reason Foundation is the biggest of these groups, but there are many spin-offs
around the country, coming up with arguments to shoot down taxation for all
sorts of transportation programs and projects.They often give special attention to public transportation –
which they really dislike – and they get really
excited about opposing streetcars!

The takeaway?Those of us who are advocates for public investment in infrastructure –
desperately needed to bring our nation success in the 21st century –
need to be vigilant about the facts and vigorous in pursuing our case.

Thursday, June 23, 2016

I was honored recently to take part in a festive 50th
birthday celebration for my agency “alma mater,” the New Jersey Department of
Transportation.

The agency itself is older than that, but it was officially
transformed from a highway department to a transportation department with
enactment of the Transportation Act of 1966.(Legislative geeks may be interested to note that the 1966
act didn’t repeal the old highway department statute: it just added a new
layer.The New Jersey transportation
laws are like an archeological dig, with stratified layers telling ancient
stories of old problems and policies.)

The highlight of the celebration was an appearance of 12
former commissioners and acting commissioners of the department, whose NJDOT
history went back as far as the 1950s.The panel discussion of the 12 veterans included many reminiscences, a
few revelations, and lots of expressions of warm feelings toward each other and
toward the agency staff.I think
it reaffirmed the view of many of us that this is an organization with a real
heart and soul.Of course, the
warm and fuzzies at any such celebration avoid a lot of the more painful
episodes of the past, but on balance NJDOT has a lot to celebrate for the past
50 years and many exciting challenges to look forward to in the next 50!

Tuesday, May 24, 2016

Just 5 years ago an incredibly destructive tornado roared
through my old hometown of Joplin, Missouri, killing 161 people and leaving a
wide band of devastation that is still being restored.The town’s high school (my alma mater),
largest hospital, and many businesses and homes were destroyed.

Monday, May 16, 2016

A New Jersey business group has refloated the idea of
extending the River Line transit system from the city’s train station, where it
now terminates, to the downtown area, a distance of a bit more than a mile
(news story here). Mid-Jersey Chamber of Commerce director Bob Prunetti
announced the plan in a press conference with Trenton Mayor Eric Jackson.The existing line is mostly on
dedicated right-of-way, but the extension would run on city streets.Some initial planning was done on this
segment when the line was started, but it was dropped for cost considerations.It is currently on an NJ Transit shelf
list (“projects to be defined/studied”).

The extension is a great idea and should be done to fully
connect the state capital to the state’s transit network.In fact, the extension really needs to
continue – in a future phase – through Trenton to connect with another rail
line and with the Trenton airport.(This was recommended by an airport land use study I led a few years
ago.)There is, not surprisingly,
no money for this project, or for several transit projects queued up ahead of
it.However, we continue to hope that
the New Jersey Transportation Trust Fund will some day be replenished and will
begin to fund the work that needs to be done to bring the state’s
transportation system into the 21st century.

For those of you not familiar with it, the River Line is a
34-mile long, 21-station diesel transit line connecting Trenton and Camden and
carrying 9,000 passengers a day.It runs through several old towns along the Delaware River and was
envisioned as an economic development project as much as a transportation
project.(The story of its birth
involves a political promise to invest state Transportation Trust Fund money in
transit in South Jersey, a rebellion against another proposed line by wealthier
suburban towns, and the availability of a rail right-of-way that Conrail was
dumping.)Although usually
categorized as a light rail line, it really has more in common with the type of
service that a hundred years ago was called an “interurban” line.

The Mid-Jersey Chamber of Commerce decided to launch the
project as a means of stimulating economic development in downtown Trenton.The city’s redevelopment has lagged
behind that of similar urban areas in the Northeast.

The group has backed up its proposal with a white paper,
“Light Rail Economic Impact Study for the City of Trenton” (link in the news
story cited above), which lays out the economic development case for the
project.The study also refers to
the further extension, toward the airport and the Ewing Township redevelopment
project, which I mentioned earlier.The full River Line extension – together with existing and proposed
Amtrak, NJ Transit, and SEPTA rail lines, a new BRT service, and a relocated
airport terminal – would create a modern, transit-linked, urban center,
anchored by the state capital and the Princeton knowledge hub.

Tuesday, May 10, 2016

Long-range planning for climate change is a work in progress
in the transportation community.Everyone (well, maybe that’s a slight exaggeration) knows it needs to be
done but the theory and practice are still in a very formative state.A current “best practice” that planners
should look at is the Future Forces report published by the Delaware Valley
Regional Planning Commission as part of their long-range planning effort.The Future Forces report (short version
here, long version here) identifies five forces that seem likely to shape the
future.(I have had the
opportunity to be part of this effort.Some general comments here.)One of these forces is Severe Climate.

The “What-If” Scenario for Severe Climate in the greater
Philadelphia region takes us to what things might look like in 2045.There are lots of problems worldwide:
flooding, extreme weather events, droughts, food shortages, infrastructure
failure.However, things are not
actually so bad in Philly:“Relative to other areas, Greater Philadelphia has become a more
desirable place to live due to less risk of sea level rise and continued water
availability.”In fact, a
population increase is predicted due to “climate change-driven
immigration.”I think this is a
critical point.The DVRPC planners
recognize that the ill effects of climate change are not going to be evenly
distributed.There will be lots of
regional variation.How we plan as
a nation should be complemented by how we plan as regions.

This doesn’t mean that Philadelphia gets a free pass.Problems in 2045 will likely include
flooding threats to Philadelphia International Airport, port facilities, the
Northeast Corridor rail line, and highways.Higher river levels may reduce effective bridge clearances
and restrict ship traffic.Infrastructure maintenance and repair costs will increase.And current projections suggest that
things really start to turn ugly after
2045.

The report identifies “top regional actions” that are
recommended to prepare for the effects of each of the Future Forces.For Severe Climate adaptation
(mitigation is also included in this section), the recommended actions include:

·Identify vulnerable community and transportation
assets and take steps to minimize risk,

·Improve emergency preparedness,

·Make improvements to wetlands and build levees
as needed to prepare for flooding, and

·Update building codes.

In addition to scenario-specific actions, the plan
identifies “universal actions” – actions that are “beneficial to the region
regardless of which forces come into play in the future.”This is the approach that is sometimes
called “no regrets” planning.Among
these universal actions is improving resiliency:

“Create and implement regional infrastructure resiliency
plans.Increase funding for
projects that reduce vulnerability, and enhance flexibility and resiliency of
infrastructure to the effects of climate change.Accommodate relocation of critical assets where possible and
harden them where it is not.”

DVRPC deserves congratulations for tackling long-range
climate change planning aggressively and skillfully.We all have a lot to learn in this department, and the
Future Forces effort helps our education.

Friday, May 6, 2016

The Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission has
published a short version of its Future Forces report (available here), an
innovative effort to inform long-range planning through envisioning the big
trends that will shape our world in 2045.I have had the privilege of being part of this effort, which brought
together a core group of smart and knowledgeable people, along with DVRPC staff,
to wrestle a lot of data, predictions, and ideas into what is (hopefully) a
useful guide to forward-looking decision making in transportation,
infrastructure, housing, and other fields.

The process identified five key “future forces” that will
likely drive events over the next 30 years:

·Enduring urbanism – the return of cities and
continued growth in urbanized places

·The free agent economy – the transformation of
the employment experience from careers to jobs to gigs

·Severe climate – climate change and extreme
weather events

·Transportation on demand – Uber and beyond

·The U. S. energy boom – natural gas and
renewables are making the energy future look a lot different

For each of the forces, the DVRPC report set out what-if
scenarios, metrics, challenges, and desirable actions, tailored to the needs of
the greater Philadelphia region (5 counties in Pennsylvania and 4 counties in
New Jersey).

This is really a cutting edge effort, and anyone interested
in long-range planning should take a look at this report.Better yet, you can also go to the full
technical report, available here.

The idea of introducing a tax on carbon in the United States
has returned to the policy spotlight.Two papers by David Roberts on Vox.com have advanced the discussion
considerably.The first paper
(here) argues that a carbon tax is not
a policy panacea for curbing climate change, which will, in the author’s view,
require a whole bunch of very aggressive, activist policies.But it is still worth doing.The second paper (here) directly
addresses the political constraints on enacting a carbon tax.

Now, we all know that there are rigid political constraints
on doing anything at the federal level these days, perhaps beyond naming post
offices for deceased former congressmen.Roberts doesn’t flinch from facing these constraints, laying out a crisp
critique of various proposals and putting forth his own.The crux of the issue, he says, is not
to focus on the tax itself but on what to do with the revenue raised by a tax.

He correctly – in my view – points out the defects in the
“revenue neutral” approach favored by many analysts.I would add one more argument against a revenue neutral
approach: the federal government needs more revenue.The fact is that today the federal government doesn’t have
enough revenue to comfortably operate its existing programs, much less
undertake the work needed to attack this country’s serious social and economic
problems and to do the public sector work that needs to be done to make us a
successful 21st century nation.

Roberts argues, on political as well as policy grounds, that
a more successful approach would be to earmark revenue from a carbon tax for
popular and effective clean energy programs.The program would sell the tax.His suggested narrative:

“First: We want to accelerate the technological development,
early market commercialization, and wide deployment of clean, renewable energy,
so that America can innovate, create jobs in some of the 21st
century’s most promising industries, and spur economic development.We’ll also set aside some money to make
sure no one is left behind or left out of the new energy economy.Then: Oh, and guess what: It’s paid
for, entirely funded by a tax on fossil fuel energy.”

One side note on the politics of a carbon tax: Roberts
mentions the experience of British Columbia, which has the best-known carbon
tax in North America, one that has survived the push and pull of party politics
(my earlier comments on the BC tax here).In fact, many in BC, including local politicians, are arguing for increasing the carbon tax (news story
here).

Now, some thoughts on what all this has to do with the
transportation sector.

Roberts suggests, in the first paper, that a carbon tax will
have little effect on transportation: “It’s a blunt-force tool.It will do wonders in some sectors
(driving coal out of electricity) but very little in others (driving oil out of
transportation).” I would note,
however, that driving coal out of electricity would add great value to the
increased proliferation of electric vehicles.The overall benefits of EVs depend a lot on how the electric
power they use is generated.

A more important point goes to the use of carbon tax
revenues.Why not use some of
these revenues to advance the electrification of the transportation
network?Some possibilities: